hes no first ballot, likely last ballot, but once you see the "dominant pitchers" of this era, like pedro, whos got 219 wins in an era where you pitch at least 10 less games a year than back in the day. even if pedro won 50% of those extra games in his prime hed have 269+win and a career era under 3. thats hall worthy when you throwing to roided up morons.

johan santana has only 125 wins and hes already looking like hes on the downside of his career. we cant judge pitchers like they used to back in the day, with relievers and closers its a whole different game. that said moyer deserves to be in the hall based on his post 30 career, his longevity, his consistancy and just playin the game right. since no one will ever win even 250 games again, i think once moyers career is measured hell be in.

I'll take that as a compliment. I think! Would it have been more appropriate if I replaced "devil" with "Steinbrenner"?

Johnny, my own "sliding scale" puts a guy who has a .320 composite average in his 10 best seasons in the Hall. Edgar's BA/OBS/SLG/OPS package shows just what a fine hitter he was.

BSK, point taken on Sandy's injury. Maybe "What if...? isn't fair with Koufax. But I originally used Koufax simply because he best met the definition of "short burst" that I was looking for. He had an astonishing five-year run (evidently costing him longevity because of his pitching style) that was the overwhelming bulk of his career success.

I was using Sandy primarily as a springboard to highlight John's totals for a portion of his career that I believe made him Hall-worthy. I used a John/Gibson comparison to highlight where that slice of John's career put him.

Look at another Hall lefty, Herb Pennock, who won 241 games in 22 seasons. John won his highlighted 260 games in one less season, with an ERA that was .43 lower. It's almost exactly the same difference with another Hall hurler, Waite Hoyt. Hoyt won 237 games in 21 seasons, with a 3.59 ERA. John beats them both, handily.

Here's another: Ted Lyons. He was 260-230, 3.67 ERA in 21 seasons. The wins are the same, but Lyons has 48 more losses, and an ERA that's half-a-run higher.

How is John less worthy? Of the three, only Hoyt got in through the "back door" (Veterans' Committee). Pennock and Lyons were deemed worthy by the writers.

At the very least, I believe these comparisons show that John was/is very undervalued.

My point was with playing the "what if" game, not with specific players HOF cred. I used Munson and Gehrig because they had abrupt endings to their careers completely out of their control. If Gehrig didn't have his disease, he might have strung together a few more seasons (though he clearly already made his case and then some). And if Munson didn't die in a plane crash, who is to say what he would have done?

For Koufax, the issue is different. Saying, "If he didn't get hurt, he would have done that for 2 or 3 or 5 more years." Well, who's to say he could have pitched effectively in a manner that would have kept him healthy? His injury was directly related to his pitching style which was directly related to his success. You can't really take the one without the other and, if you do, you get into hypotheticals that are just unreasonable and, ultimately, irrelevant.

Now, does that mean Koufax doesn't belong in the HoF? I'm certainly not arguing that. Only that he is a bad candidate for the "What if" game, one I'm reluctant to play at all and particularly opposed to for a guy like Koufax.

Imagine a ball player who made a deal with the devil, agreeing to literally trade his right arm for 3 consecutive Triple Crown, MVP seasons. This is a player who would otherwise be a solid regular but nothing more. Now, some might look at him in hindsight and say, "Imagine if he never lost his arm! Who knows what he would have done!" Well, we actually know exactly what he would have done: he would have stayed a solid regular. He only achieved his success at the direct expense of his arm. So we can't "What if" him because there is no "What if".

Now, that's a bit out there, I get, and clearly there is more gray area for Koufax in terms of exactly what contributed to his injury. BUT, it's the best way I could try to illustrate myself. Let's just hope Koufax didn't ACTUALLY make a deal with the devil...

I understand what you (and Johnny Twisto) are saying. Good or bad, however, it certainly is used to boost some players' credentials, but not others.

If Sandy had just those five Hall-caliber seasons, let's say so, and agree that he either needs more, or those five are enough. Then, apply the same standards to the other cases (Edgar Martinez, for instance).

The Edgar Martinez of 1992, 1995-2001 was certainly a Hall-caliber offensive player. That's eight years of high quality numbers, with two batting crowns and seven All-Star appearances, and you can add two more .300+ seasons (1990-'91), as well.

If he's forced to retire because of the bad hammies with just those 10 seasons, is he in? In that scenario, his career average is right around .320. And it's ended by circumstances involving a "freak accident," so it seems to meet BSK's standard.

Maybe the Hall career is actually in there, but Gar (and John) are being knocked down because they played on. If you already have the requisite numbers for serious consideration, should your case be devalued by having played other seasons that were less successful? It didn't seem to hurt Sandy.

Again, is five years enough to cement someone's Hall status?

Getting back to Moyer, what about the fact that -- with more extensive bullpen use at the back end, and fewer starts per season to begin with -- pitchers like Moyer are still able to rack up so many wins?

He's getting the wins with far fewer opportunities per season. They're strung out more, over more seasons. But they are still there.

Even if we can't say he would win "X" number of those additional starts, we can still admit that he's not even getting the chance to prove it, one way or another. League leaders in games started have dropped over the last 50 years, from around 40-45 to 34-35. Is that fair game in approaching career win totals?

If you can still rack up 260 or more wins, with so many fewer opportunities per season, that says something about perseverence. Despite his long career, Moyer is still only 18th in career starts. Comparing Moyer to John, TJ got 288 wins, but started 700 games. Moyer has just 26 fewer wins, despite 85 fewer starts.

I admit to being surprised by that comparison. Whether that vaults Moyer into the fence-straddling class, with John (Kaat, Blyleven and Mullane) may be in how you apply the numbers.

Is it short burst of brilliance (Koufax), career pile of numbers (300 wins, 500 homers, regardless of all else), or do we parse the percentages more, as in the case of Moyer/John?

One last thought: In the "He was never one of the 4-5 best pitchers of his era" argument used against John, who is to say that there are only so many legit Hall-caliber pitchers in any given stretch of years?

Does saying John suffers by comparision to Seaver, or Carlton, or Palmer necessarily tar his qualifications against the entire history of Major League pitchers?

Maybe that era (mid-to-late-'70's) was just particularly rich in extraordinary pitching talent. After all, there were also Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Perry, Jenkins, Hunter, and even "shooting stars" like J.R. Richard (another great "short burst" argument, with freak, career-ending, illness/injury).

Maybe John and the others, like Richie Ashburn, simply have to wait their turn.

When (if) no one else reaches 250 wins in the next 20 years, perhaps John, Kaat, Blyleven, and even Moyer will be re-evaluated.

As far as Moyer goes, I think he clearly is more comparable to Kaat or Tommy John than to most of the modern pitchers who are in. There could be an argument if he reached 300 wins, but the odds that a guy who is already the oldest non-knuckleball starter in baseball history will remain effective for three more years are astronomical.